"Opinions Elsewhere"

[ In defense of the individual people who work their butts
off producing content that appeals to me, here are some
sites I was unaware of at the time of writing:
CamWorld,
Flutterby!,
AnandTech,
Justin Hall, to
name a small few. ]

Please excuse my lapse in updating the Soapbox on time -- I'm
indulging in an Anna-filled summer at the moment. Although
I'm quick to get on OTHER peoples' cases about not updating
materials in a timely and efficient manner, I think I deserve
this treat in European bliss and my woman's love. After all,
my last break was Christmas. Life's been changing rather quickly
for me as of late and the fun of youth can easily be overlooked
without my realizing it. Besides, I'll be back and posting
vitriolic content in no time. I can't stop.

It's time for the periodic rant about the Web. All the online authors
do it, but few get it right, in my opinion. It's good that we're
all thinking about it, and worrying about it, but how many actually
see the Web less as just an addictive habit, and more as an incorporation
into the lives of every human being? How many authors actually have
the experience to accurately track the Web's evolution?

Few personal site authors from back then are still active now.
Maybe the growing proliferation of terrible personal site
authors (henceforth referred to as "Twits" -- ugh, been
reading too many nondisclosure contracts) need to take a
vacation in order to create something at least
slightly interesting on the Web and put some life back into it.

You know the sites I'm talking about. You explore the Web and you find
site after site with splash pages warning you about a coming redesign.
Meanwhile, the old version of the site has been taken down, so there
isn't much to see. Osil8.com and birthoftragedy.com, among others.
Everyone knows that redesign won't usually come through for a month or two.
Why not leave the OLD site up so we can look at that? Then surprise us
when you've done the new layout. I mean, Jesus, it's not like Mr. Joe
Schmuck is going to create a Van Gogh for the world to marvel at as soon
as it hits the Web. Give us something to look at.

What of the sites that start out like this? "Um. Okay. I didn't know
what to write for my site, so I'm just going to ramble for a bit. I just
learned HTML after being inspired by so-and-so's web site. I just HAD
to contribute something too." Then the essay proceeds to fumble around
looking for something to say. It's fine if you're experimenting to have
a site with gadgets and widgets to play with, but don't expect people
to link to you and give you attention when that's all you have. And
certainly do NOT proclaim yourself as a long-time contributor to a
revolutionary medium and trumpet all the content on your site. Show
some respect for the people who do it better than you, while at the same
time shying away from self-degradation.

What personal sites do YOU, Mr. Reader, go to for cool graphics and
inspirational content posted in the last 48 hours? I'd say Glassdog first,
but even Mr. Arthur has closed shop indefinitely (read: bye bye,
Glassdog) for some seemingly ambitious but perhaps poorly advertised
design consortium project. At least he leaves all his work up online.
If you want a good example of the wit and excellent style of Mr.
Arthur's, visit Flabjab.com and read his opinion pieces. Never fails
to entertain.

Maggy's Water? Well, she always removes her old stuff (the
good stuff) in a tiff because someone DARED to say
negative things to her. What she has now is a thrown-together
mess of sloppy, subtle references to her life -- the end result being a
medley of words placed together in random order so that the overall story
makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Her daughter is super-cute, though.
It's lovely reading about happy children and their happy parents for once.

Alexis Massie of pbot.com and afterdinner.com fame is still Alexis, now
frothing up much ado about slugs in a quest to find heartbreak in every
person she meets in a ten mile radius. Her designs have gone from
Internet-inspired exercises in curiosity to bored, lifeless, stifled
cold slabs of ambiguous navigational buttons and self-loat^H^Hving
pictures of herself (a la Maggy) as her moody backgrounds. Anna and I
caught a neat little thing on one of Alexis's recent essays: we were
reading it, and Alexie, who is some sort of Shakespearean consort with
Maggy, wrote, "...and it turns out Maggy was just using me the whole
time", loosely quoted. We reloaded the essay later and that sentence
was gone. Heh. She's tired. Very tired. She regularly talks about
the people who say negative things about what she tries to do -- frankly,
I don't know who she's referring to, because I never see anything bad
in a public forum about her, except for maybe here. Terrible when critics
don't have gumption.

Then there are the dozens upon dozens of hangers-on who troll the mailto:
links and Fray submission boards in an attempt to get noticed (and linked
to) by the dysfunctional posse we have come to recognize in contests and
personal site commentaries throughout the Web, those listed above. They
post elaborate, overdrawn personal stories to show off their writing
styles (hey, I ain't no good writer, either, but then again you don't see
my words on dozens of sites...and with good reason). They do the Internic
domain thing and put up pretentious web sites and get a fair sum of hits.
But they're flash in the pans...no staying power. And if they admitted
it, it would be better for them -- I know myself how much fun it is to
have one's own domain and site -- everyone should dabble with that stuff --
but I don't make more of myself than what I am. I'm surprisingly humble
in person. ;)

Don't get me wrong -- it is good that everyone has sites up. I don't
deny their effect, or the importance that their information has for the
personal site community. I just don't see the point of the Web journal,
per se. I tire of the masochistic bullshit melodramatic aging 20-somethings
impose on themselves. Every other week these sad people post sad stories
about sad events in their lives, dressed up in flowery language and
confusing metaphors. But these personal web sites are contributive
nonetheless, if only in kilobytes, and my harshness should not
overlook that.

My main target in this piece is the personal journal, and I'll shift
to talking about it later. But first...

No, I don't hate all personal sites. I'll clarify. I have a newfound
respect for the Fray and its founder, Derek Powazek. I also enjoy Bill
Osborg's mailing list describing his journeys on a good old American
aircraft carrier patrolling the Persian Gulf. I like Flabjab in the
same way I like the Fray. I'll explain more about these later.

At first I was a bit quick to judge Mr. Powazek and I put him down
unnecessarily (and undeservedly) in the Soapbox about the woman from
Salon Magazine who copied a design seemingly verbatim from the Fray.
After revisiting the Fray on numerous occasions (no, it never inspired
me as it has the asskissers of the Web who spend their whole site
introductions worshipping the Twits), I realize that it is an excellent
forum for people to speak their minds, however little they have to say.
Another site, Flabjab, started by Ben Brown (an inert, reactionary fellow
who picks up on overused political cartoon jokes and forges them into
original opinion -- a fun guy, I suppose, but that RealAudio interview
of him by Alexis conveyed a naivete towards the Web), is quite a good
site to hang around at, since it's cheerful, goofy, and gets writers'
opinions on specific topics like sex and death (what else is there?).
Flabjab is much like the Fray in this respect, and both deserve merit.
Have you seen Mr. Powazek's design portfolio, by the way? Ooh, some
serious contracts and clean, sharp, cunning designs. I like. The guy
knows his web shit. I shouldn't forget to add that Mr. Powazek is
dating Drue Miller, a very cool Web woman in her own right. She
teaches a class in Web design, so the students obviously have
good material to work from. Anyone who actually helps people on the
Internet instead of bragging about their soon-to-be outdated computers or
their limited computer knowledge is fine by me.

A stable love relationship. A rarity on the "incestuous Web". There's
so much dirty laundry among the Twits and it's become quite rank. Reading
online journals now is weeding out the URLs of bland new Twit-wannabe
sites and figuring out which other author on the Web he's currently
sleeping with. Wait a month and then you can read about that person's
anger because he broke up with her and now she's sleeping with the owner
of singrrl.com, his ex-lover. Intrigued? It's not really all that
interesting.

The reason why is that these Web journals leave out names and details in
some pathetic, shallow attempt to hide a big show they produced. I don't
understand why people make a huge fuss about something, then try to be
secretive and subtle about it. Pisses me off, quite frankly.

Remember the Spot? The first online soap opera? Interactive soaps at
their best and newest. Greater depth of character content, customized
to your tastes. You want to read about some characters' lustful thoughts,
miserable breakups, and stories in the workplace, but skip other less
interesting characters? No problem at the Spot. You could browse stories,
overviews, private diaries, whatever. Then you could compare characters'
private thoughts against each other and get the whole story.

Sure it was fake. But this is about seeing how people interact, right?
You need endless details and resources, not shifty content full of
ambiguous pronouns and references that only make sense to the author and
her closest friends. Twits excel at ambiguity, you know. I don't
understand making the big leap in privacy by posting word that you got
fucked last night, but you refuse to say more.

What, are Twits trying to keep their essays tasteful?

The Spot succeeded at what online journals fail at. The online journal
was big at first because no one had done it before. Nowhere else could
we see unknown people somewhere out there in the world posting stories
about their lives. Amazing at the time. But not anymore.

All we've learned is that, no matter where these people live, they
have shitty lives and shitty relationships and shitty jobs and shitty
parents and shitty computer problems...just...like...absolutely...everyone...else.

Oh, please, if I have to read another sullen story about a painful breakup,
spoon out my guts and fill the hole with heaping teaspoons of salt and
tacks.

Fuck personal journals. Even Alexis, to her credit, has admitted that
online diaries have become "tedious". Okay, it might be your thing to
read others' disgustingly sad life experiences, but I personally don't
care for them. Unless they add some interesting twist, like detail or
development, they're just mirrors of other personal journals. Bill Osborg
has a common enough goal in his web site, but his mailing list gives his
readers keen insight into what it's like serving in the U.S. Navy and
living on an aircraft carrier and visiting the Middle East. That's
HIS interesting twist, and I appreciate his work and enthusiasm.

But how different ARE most 20 to 30 year old computer geeks who make
their livings by scamming companies into thinking the Web will
quadruple profits?

This is my Soapbox, my domain name, my virtual host. Mine. Want a rounded
opinion? This isn't professional, investigative journalism. It's me
speaking. This is my turn to talk, and you can have yours.

I'm bombarded every day with peoples' sob stories: classmates, Web
journals, friends, magazine feedback letters, e-mails, workmates, whatever.
You think what I want to do when I get home from all that depressing
relationship nonsense is to hit the Web and find more of the shit on your
site? Who are you joking? Do you think the events in your life are
original? Special? Thought-provoking?

Reading the Fray's guest story submissions about losing lovers is like
reading a 6-year-old's attempt at writing in the Shakespearean language.
"He said, 'Goodbye,' and my heart crumbled into dust, the world laughing
at me in the mocking, dulcit coos of doves. Alas, my demise!" In
reality-speak, this mumbo jumbo is translated into, "We broke up. Happens
to everyone. Another boyfriend up on a chalkboard of thousands."

How would you react if instead of posting my firm opinions on things from
week to week, I just told you that I've been spending the last four or
so weeks with my girlfriend, and that I'm happy, and all that jazz? Unless
you're a close friend, you couldn't care less. It matters to me, but
me writing that Frank and I met Jo at the bar and we talked for half an
hour and it was pretty cool because we got drunk and stuff...no thanks.
Believe me, journals are like that. If I were going to give you factoids
about my life, I'd describe how beautiful Stockholm is in the summer. I'd
describe the clean water and the clean air, and all the blonde people here.
I'd tell you about what London is like right now. I'd bitch about plane
flights. At least maybe travelling interests you, or you can identify with
flying.

But I don't post facts often. An occasional review of a product, or an
explanation of something. I'm terrible at being objective.

I love opinions. How individual people feel about topics which affect
everyone. How the mind works. How the mind is shaped. I love seeing,
reading, and hearing discussion and argument.

So where do the writings of every day of nobodies' lives leave the Web?
It's temporary content on a medium which has swiftly and furtively
replaced the bold, emblazoned voice of the individual packing his 2MB
web account, with the voluptuous tease of animated "Click here for Cash"
buttons and online versions of world-dominating news service behemoths
like CNN and ESPN.

While companies scurry to make money online, the talented personal site
authors are assimilated into gruntwork Web jobs which drain them of the
inspiration the Web once fostered for them.

What we're left with, unfortunately, are beautiful commercial sites,
done by the cool people, and personal sites done by folks who have
opinions they looked up in books and magazines, folks who have seemingly
lifeless souls and who know nothing about web design or browser and monitor
differences in page layout. microsoft.com looks great, while Joe's
Web Shack has the typical "WWW is cool" introduction, of which I can't
read comfortably anyway because Joe decided to place all of his text in
a 100x200 pixel frame, a box which shows even less text because some room
is taken to display the horizontal and vertical scrollbars needed to read
the rest of the text. Then at the end of the frame, you find you were
duped anyway because none of the content was worth the time anyway. Jesus!

Name me a personal site author and I couldn't tell you for sure if he
actually has a thought or not. I know that he loves the Web and I know
that he thinks e-mail is cool. But does he have opinions? Dislikes?
Pet peeves? Passionate political stances? No clue.

Is there no one out there who voices his opinions on things on the Web
that are interesting to more than a handful of people? Who talks about
the China-U.S. talks, or France's dream road to the World Cup final? Or
Intel's stranglehold on the computer industry? Or even something so
obscure as XML's potential role as the dove and olive branch to mediate
the long-standing fight between design and content in HTML and the Web?
It doesn't exist, except on commercial sites which make it their business
to be conciliatory to all parties involved so that they don't sour any
relations. Too bad what I resort to these days more and more are
commercial news and info sites.

Opinions on the ACTUAL feelings and long-term effects and evolution of
love, computers, religion, politics, sex, and even computer games
are what interest me. I don't think I'm alone there.

That's how I find out what a person has ticking inside of him. Not what
time he went to the bathroom after having ICQ sex online with three other
men posing as women. What are personal site authors INFLAMED about? I
loved Mr. Glassdog's choices of topoi in his essays because he would always
admit he wasn't great at writing (which he is), instead of taking his
site down, convinced he was the next Irving. He would talk about things
which were big in the news and which were interesting to large segments
of people. It's kind of cool getting the common man's opinions on the
summer's blockbuster movies, before they hit the advertising circuit.

We live in a time when it's easier than ever to distinguish the tiny voice
of every thought on this planet. But we are slammed with barrages of
official corporate stances, gallop polls, and general opinion. The
individual has been drowned out. I don't care if Geocities posts damage
control in journalists' articles stating that it thought its members would
like the little Geocities icon that always stays at the bottom right of
the screen (visit a Geocities site and you'll see what I'm talking about).
I want to know what the Geocities USERS think. Picking random Geocities
addresses to find peoples' opinions on the matter isn't as easy or
successful as you'd think. I'd like to see if people will boycott
Geocities, or send flames to them, or take any action at all. I want to
see what people think about having something imposed on them without their
will. I want to see them fight back.

I read the autobio of a person first when I visit his page. To see if
there are any descriptions of thoughts and feelings about worldly or
spiritual things. My autobio has a section completely devoted to listing
my favorite movies, words, music groups, styles, etc. etc. It's not as
useful in learning about a person as, say, an opinion piece on abortion
would be, but I think it's a quick and easy way to get a general feel
for my attitudes, tastes, and age.

I like simple things like that on web sites.

So I suppose it is obvious I don't go to personal sites to get what I
want anymore. A fruitless effort that is. But I HAVE found a few uncut,
passionate, amusing opinion pages out there.

They're the anonymous sites devoted to giving the corporate-free versions
of news stories as they relate to the online gaming community. Quake,
Unreal, you know. Imagine a site which actually shows id Software,
the king of 3d shooters, online gaming, and pirated sof..er...shareware,
to be less than the god other sponsored news sites show it to be. Imagine
sites which refuse to look past lazy programming and tech men who drive
their success-bought sports cars more than building the quality games
they used to. Yeah, it's refreshing.

These sites are run anonymously, since they're usually operated by people
"in the Biz". You're liable to get fired if you post negative stuff about
your own company. They have the inside dirt on the companies that teens and
compugeeks spend years swooning over to get a job at. It ain't such
a pretty picture on the inside, away from the glitzy Italian and German
racing cars and well-financed time-wasting that has come to be normal
among the game producers. We were tired of reading programmers' finger
.plan files in hope of seeing some work reports on what features were
added to the next Quake 2 killer, being disappointed when all that was
there was a bowel movement report and a "Women I'd Like to Sleep With"
list. The best is when these programmers complain about how hard their
lives are. Must be hard to create entertainment. ;)

As an aside, I think it's a shame these anonymous sites are receiving
flak for being tabloid sites, as well as for being anonymous. Oh, you'll
read that all the "professional" people who write online have no respect
for those who post their information anonymously. Like they're proud that
everyone can attach the shitty news to a face. Anonymity doesn't
necessarily rid someone of responsibility in posting responsible news --
the legit anonymous sites will survive and the fake ones won't. Also,
these sites aren't tabloids. They just point out how lax and immature
programmers can be, showing that if these guys had better managers, they'd
produce much better games for us to buy. Tabloids are all about publishing
sleazy sex and love news about celebs that make no difference anyway.
The anonymous gaming sites usually give us pertinent info about the
business, not the lives of the people involved. Anyway...

Anonymous sites provide good insight into where the haven for opinions
is moving to. I want to keep an eye on these sites to see how they
develop.

Because if they succeed, my following hypothesis will hold up: the
individual on the Web plays his cards the strongest when his content
antagonizes a strong commercial influence. Hell, the Internet boomed
the way it did precisely because it gave everyone the ability to put words
into the world that previously only multi-billion dollar companies
could do. People could fight back and laugh in the faces of IBM and
Microsoft (although guess which company laughed back). A good deal of
Web content back in the early days dealt with how sole people suddenly had
a technological edge over multinational organizations. We had web sites
and Coke and movie companies were still deriding the foolish Web. Now
companies have figured out how to live along with personal sites without
making too much of a racket. Free services like Hotmail, ICQ, and
web counters are owned by Microsoft, AOL, and Satan, respectively.
Free services serve as covers for much hated moneygrubbers.

But still that free speech engrained deeply in more and more people lives
on -- we're still criticizing magazines in their own reader feedback
sections, we're still bashing even the most loved companies like id
Software, and we're still pushing businesses to work harder and sacrifice
more in order to keep our loyalty.

The individual is still out there.

But, sadly, no longer in the personal site. This I've said many times
before, ad nauseam. I'm just hoping that individual authors will start
listening, take down that vapid web site fluff, and prove me wrong by
pumping the hot blood of opinion back into the personal site genre again.

For now, though, if you're anything like me, I'm afraid these things will
just have to be sought elsewhere, and the vigilant will have to keep on
watch until things get better again.

Then again, I could be a pompous, narrow-minded prick who refuses to accept
others' interests and perspectives. God knows I'm long-winded. I'm working
on that, I promise. Much easier when you're writing objectively, which I'm
not. Maybe I am all those horrible things above -- but if I were to step
back, dilute my thoughts, and refuse to take a clear stance, I'd be
doing exactly what I put so much time into ranting against. My defense
rests.